2 striker formations - behind the times?

[AshtonRobin21]

I’ve just had a look at the current championship table. It caught my eye that the current top 6 (plus Millwall in 7th), all play formations suited to one striker. 

Delving deeper into this from 1st place to ourselves in 11th, only two teams play with 2 regular strikers. 

Leeds - Bamford

West Brom - Robson-Kanu

Brentford - Watkins

Forest - Grabban

Fulham - Mitrovic

Swansea - Baston

Millwall - Bradshaw

Sheff Wed - play 2 up top (rotation)

Hull - Eaves

Preston - Stockley (*often rotated)

City - Fam and Weimann

Is this showing that our formation is out of date with the current trend of formations within the league. There’s no questioning that counter-attacking football has become a key part of today’s game, leading to teams maximising their strengths with the use of wingers and attacking midfielders. Yet our shape and general set up looks to be rather flat. 

Formations such as 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 are the chosen set-up for the teams in the top end of the division. So why do we flick between 3-5-2 and 4-4-2? 

The main discussion on the forum today has been about Kasey Palmer. Now we could certainly argue that he has been mismanaged. Kasey would flourish in a 4-2-3-1. This would also allow Eliasson to play on a regular basis too.

Come the end of this transfer window we will hope to have signed a striker capable of running off the last defender. Would this not be perfectly suited to a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3?  

LJ made a valid point after the Luton game about the players attacking Eliassons crosses. He wants one across the near post and someone always attacking the back. A 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 allows the second winger to attack the box at the far post whilst the striker attacks the near.

This seems to be a strength of Marley Watkins (credit to him in recent weeks, looks to have stepped up). Marley is physical, and hardworking. The goal against Luton highlights my point about attacking the cross. 

When we have possession (particularly at home matches) we often look to reach a ‘sticking point’ in the final 3rd of the pitch. The movement seems to slow down and options are limited. Often our only option is to play the ball wide to Eliasson and hope for some of his magic to work. 

Looking at other teams in the division (West Brom, Leeds, Brentford, Fulham), they seem to have consistent fluidity in their style of football in a formation that fits. 

Looking through our squad we have players with great ability who I believe are being restricted in the current formations.

Massengo, Nagy, Brownhill are all capable of moving the ball quickly as they are capable of driving forward with the ball. It currently seems that they are either being told to make numerous passes (before subsequently squandering possession), or they have no options in front of them.

Players such as Palmer, Eliasson, Watkins, Paterson are the direct link to goal. Get them in the positions to make an impact. Allow them to show their ability in the freedom given to the likes of Benrahma, pereira, Diaganna and Hernandez. 

The look of the current standings tells a story. The teams with similar systems are at the top. Yes granted only a few points separate a number of sides, but all of the current top 6 seem to have a system that recognises their strengths and allows them to showcase their attacking talent.

Our current set-up looks to invite teams on to attack us.

I’ve mentioned numerous times that we often look to minimise other teams strengths instead of implementing our own. Changing the system and formation is the best way to utilise our talents within the squad.

I’ve highlighted in the last few days that I feel in order to gain promotion to the promised land our future would lie in the hands of another manager. However that will never stop me from supporting this club, If LJ is the man in charge then he will get my backing each and every 90 minutes we play. As fans all we want is for the club to be successful moving forward. 

That said, the formation and system needs to be addressed for us to become a threat in this league.

With the squad we have let’s allow them to play fast paced football that will have teams worrying about us.

- Let’s let Eliasson use his pace and quick feet to deliver the crosses.

- Let’s let a creative midfielder (hopefully Palmer) worry about playing the killer defense splitting pass. And not have to worry about being stuck in the middle of the pitch with no option in front of him. 

-Let’s give the second winger in the system the freedom to attack the box. 

- Let’s find that striker who will give defenders a headache for 90 minutes by constantly being an option in attack.

- And finally let’s let the midfield do their job of supplying the ball forward to make those attacks possible, instead of playing 50 passes side-to-side.

[Pezo]

I struggle to call Weiman a striker the way we play him, he's more like a forward defender . 

In all seriousness though as soon as we go to one up front this place is full of people complaining about playing one up front at home and not taking it to the opposition. At the moment on here LJ is getting panned for ripping up the summer strategy simply on the basis of links to players we might or might not sign (having actually done nothing). 

If we were to do it it would probably be something like 541 or as LJ would describe it 361, he would still say that Eliasson can't do that wing back position and play weiman as a central midfielder (basically changing nothing other than dropping weiman deeper and giving defenders more time and space - the real issue being the mobility of Fam, not that that's his fault we bought him knowing he wasn't the most mobile player).

[Davefevs]

Brentford is really a from 4 (433), as is Hull with Bowen and Grosicky.

Millwall a front 3 (343) of late under Rowett

But I pretty much agree with all of what you’re saying, but I’m never really convinced formations are the be-all and end-all though. It’s about players working cohesively to a plan.  I don’t see consistency (of team selection, system) game to game and within a game to see much of a pattern since earlier this season when we went 5212 (dropping into a 532 without the ball) fairly regularly.

The 0-0 v Forest was perhaps a turning point.  Most fans cheesed off we didn’t see off a team reduced to 10 men on the hour.  I thought Forest were really well organised...and we could’ve snatched it.  I thought it was a solid point, a clean sheet.

We get “bummed” at West Brom, playing a new (LJ trying to be clever) way....against arguably the best team in the division.

It prompted calls for Eliasson, wingers.  But it was the Forest game that sewed those seeds imho, not West Brom.

Huddersfield we stuff, Fulham we were compact and played well.  Deserved the points imho.  We were flying.

Since Forest we’ve taken 9 points from 9 games (3W 6L).

I’m not blaming Eliasson, it took me a long time to see that his pros outweighed his cons, but his inclusion introduced “change”.

We moved away from being hard to beat, we mixed up players, systems, which led to unfamiliarity, lack of cohesion, disjointed performances.  We had better clarity of selection, even if we didn’t agree with it, up to that point.

I’m not saying we should have stayed with 532-variant, but I reckon we’d be sat here with more points than 38, certainly not 8 defeats.  Someone once said “every point in the Champ is a point gained”.  City looked resolute, like they knew they weren’t beaten (Brentford away 1-1).  Now they look the opposite.

I don’t profess to know the answer, I’m hugely frustrated, other than pick a system, players and stick with it, bar a bit of fatigue based rotation.  Maybe that system choice was made at home to Luton (442), and it’s now being drilled, embedded.  If it is, then you sacrifice a couple of results to get there.  I ain’t holding my breath though.

[Guest]

Yep I said the same a week or so back, that most of the top teams in this division play one striker.

I don't get LJs decision to usually play 2 of them, especially when they don't link up well.

Last game LJ was forced into changing the system into more of a 441, or 4221 after the sending off, with Weimann wide left but drifting central, Watkins mainly staying on right the touchline.

What it did was show us how good Fam can be as a lone striker. Stay mainly in the middle up top and occupy the defenders. Hold it up and play it to either advanced winger. Fam was so good, and Watkins was fantastic again.

A 4231 would allow more freedom to Eliasson. I thought we played a bit more like that against Luton and against Huddersfield. But 2nd half against Huddersfield LJ moved Weimann further forward right up there with Fam and Huddersfield dominated until LJ then changed it to 4141 where we then looked comfortable again.

[AshtonRobin21]

I don’t believe we will see the best of either Fam or Weimann in a front 2. Space is compact and if Fam is holding the ball up he has few options around him.

Switch to 4-3-3, or 4-2-3-1, then you find the width will allow the midfield to push up higher to act as a support unit.

Gives us the option to keep the ball moving into different attacking areas and allowing more movement off the ball.

[DaveInSA]

Round pegs in round holes.

@AshtonRobin21 a great if lengthy post and setting out some ideas.

I don’t think formation is the be all and end all, it’s about player intelligence and a well drilled system. 

The last game I went to was appalling, the Blackburn game. I don’t get the Brownhill love in. He was innocuous and didn’t even see the runs the only player who was trying (Weimann) made.

For me, it’s about the teamwork. Football is a simple game. In attack, it’s about movement, holding the ball, stretching teams, luring them, then rapidly shifting the pace and delivering killer blows (not box entries - WTAF). 
 

In defence, it’s about maintaining your shape, forcing opposition players into their ‘discomfort’ zones and doing the simple things well.

In short, it’s operating as a cohesive unit. Like @Davefevs says, there’s no silver bullet and hence we look a shambles at the moment. 

[Spud55]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Brentford is really a from 4 (433), as is Hull with Bowen and Grosicky.

Millwall a front 3 (343) of late under Rowett

But I pretty much agree with all of what you’re saying, but I’m never really convinced formations are the be-all and end-all though. It’s about players working cohesively to a plan.  I don’t see consistency (of team selection, system) game to game and within a game to see much of a pattern since earlier this season when we went 5212 (dropping into a 532 without the ball) fairly regularly.

The 0-0 v Forest was perhaps a turning point.  Most fans cheesed off we didn’t see off a team reduced to 10 men on the hour.  I thought Forest were really well organised...and we could’ve snatched it.  I thought it was a solid point, a clean sheet.

We get “bummed” at West Brom, playing a new (LJ trying to be clever) way....against arguably the best team in the division.

It prompted calls for Eliasson, wingers.  But it was the Forest game that sewed those seeds imho, not West Brom.

Huddersfield we stuff, Fulham we were compact and played well.  Deserved the points imho.  We were flying.

Since Forest we’ve taken 9 points from 9 games (3W 6L).

I’m not blaming Eliasson, it took me a long time to see that his pros outweighed his cons, but his inclusion introduced “change”.

We moved away from being hard to beat, we mixed up players, systems, which led to unfamiliarity, lack of cohesion, disjointed performances.  We had better clarity of selection, even if we didn’t agree with it, up to that point.

I’m not saying we should have stayed with 532-variant, but I reckon we’d be sat here with more points than 38, certainly not 8 defeats.  Someone once said “every point in the Champ is a point gained”.  City looked resolute, like they knew they weren’t beaten (Brentford away 1-1).  Now they look the opposite.

I don’t profess to know the answer, I’m hugely frustrated, other than pick a system, players and stick with it, bar a bit of fatigue based rotation.  Maybe that system choice was made at home to Luton (442), and it’s now being drilled, embedded.  If it is, then you sacrifice a couple of results to get there.  I ain’t holding my breath though.

I agree that system and or formstion are not the be all and end all, but different systems do allow you to play different players and play them to their strengths. 

4-4-2 for me is literally the worst system that we can put out with the players that we have, it means realistically that you simply cannot play Palmer or Smodzics or Patto, so you've basically consigned 2 summer signings to the bin. We lack right wingers, Watkins is the only one we have and although he was our best player against Brentford he's not going to pull up trees in this league. It nullifies Wieman as he is not a striker, but neither is he a right midfielder he's best suited to the right side of a 3 or as the right side of a 3 just behind the striker. Also it emphasises our defensive weaknesses, as most teams will play either 3 or 5 midfielders, one always has the space and time like Brentford to either rake diagonal balls out to to their left as Hunt will be out of position, or rake the same ball to their left to take advantage of JD being tiny. 

Playing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 allows us to get the most out of our squad and unless we have literally signed players at random surely has to be the system we have put together this squad to play? We need 2 sitting midfielders to allow our very very attack minded fullbacks the freedom to get forward without exposing the defence as you not only have the screen of the 2 sitting players you have the numbers further forward to stop the ball being played in the first place by closing down. If you didn't plan to play 2 holding midfielders you wouldn't have replaced pack with 2 sitting midfielders? 

These systems mean every single one of our players has a place, 442 or 352 mean that we are wasting some of them and can't play them if we want to switch to one of those systems then we will need to recruit heavily as we don't have the players to effectively play them. 

[IAmNick]

I believe most of the bottom 6 also play with one striker up front according to whoscored.com!

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

We moved away from being hard to beat, we mixed up players, systems, which led to unfamiliarity, lack of cohesion, disjointed performances.

One thing I found interesting is that only two teams in the division have started with their most played formation less than 10 times this season... us and Stoke. We also pretty much top the charts of teams who started in their second AND third most played formation.

In fact, our standard deviation (distance from the mean) of times played in each formation is one of the lowest (4th) across the division - indicating we've played lots of formations quite a few times. If you're interested, the teams who have an even lower standard deviation than us are Stoke, Charlton, and Barnsley... doesn't make great reading! For balance, the teams with the highest standard deviation are WBA, Preston, Blackburn, and Swansea.

The average number of times the top 6 have started with their most played formation is  around 18 - or 70%. Three of the top 6 have only started in 3 formations all season, and none of them have started in a third formation more than 3 times. Special shout out to WBA who have started their primary formation in 25/26 games - Consistent!

The average number of times the bottom 6 have started with their most played formation is around 13, or 50%. All of them have started in at least 4 different formations this season, and three of them have started in 6 or more different formations!

Disclaimer: I got woken up by builders this morning so my maths may be a bit off as I'm half asleep

[Red-Robbo]

We've seen Fam played as a solo frontman multiple times - most recently for 80 minutes against Brentford - and we know he rarely scores when played like that. He just isn't quick enough.

It might be an option with whoever is incoming this month.

At present, I don't really think we have the ideal personnel for it.

[redsquirrel]

we cant play the one striker because fammy isn't quick enough and weimann isn't strong enough. afobe had the best of both and we need to replace him to get thr extra man in the middle. we need to defend better in the middle too,our defence is ok when not at risk for 90 minutes

[Dr Balls]

The thing that is becoming more apparent is that although we may have a better squad of players than we have had for a long time, we have a situation where either LJ doesn’t have a settled formation and style of play which works, into which he can slot the right players, who feel comfortable playing their natural game in those positions, nor can he find a steady formation that suits the players he has.

The much used “clubs in the bag” phrase from his dad, actually is not that helpful. Most successful teams have worked out how to set up so that they get the most out of their best players on a consistent basis. They don’t keep chopping and changing. They slot players into the same roles. Occasionally they may have an impact substitution, but rarely do you see them completely changing their formation and personnel mid-game because they were set up incorrectly to start with.

It does make you wonder about LJ and Mark Ashton and their working relationship. Does LJ say what kind of player he is looking for to fulfil a particular role, or does MA just try to get the best kind of player that roughly plays in that position at a price we can afford? The latter might explain some of the random signings that have disappeared or been moved out without much of a chance (Adelakun, Elisa, Engvall, Walsh, and even Szmodics). And also why we have struggled to get some of our more creative players into the team.

Anyway, I am sure that we will have LJ’s magic tombola picking an even more unlikely team for today’s cup fixture. Unfortunately for those players who do get a rare run out, there won’t be many there to see it! 

[redsquirrel]

why did heglar go?  I thought he was pretty good and confident in front of the back line? 

[Dredd]

Bloody hell loads of people moaned when LJ played one up top, especially at home. I’m not in the LJ in camp by any means but he’s utterly damned whatever he does in some corners

[Davefevs]

Good posts @IAmNick and @Dr Balls

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Spud55 said:

I agree that system and or formstion are not the be all and end all, but different systems do allow you to play different players and play them to their strengths. 

4-4-2 for me is literally the worst system that we can put out with the players that we have, it means realistically that you simply cannot play Palmer or Smodzics or Patto, so you've basically consigned 2 summer signings to the bin. We lack right wingers, Watkins is the only one we have and although he was our best player against Brentford he's not going to pull up trees in this league. It nullifies Wieman as he is not a striker, but neither is he a right midfielder he's best suited to the right side of a 3 or as the right side of a 3 just behind the striker. Also it emphasises our defensive weaknesses, as most teams will play either 3 or 5 midfielders, one always has the space and time like Brentford to either rake diagonal balls out to to their left as Hunt will be out of position, or rake the same ball to their left to take advantage of JD being tiny. 

Playing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 allows us to get the most out of our squad and unless we have literally signed players at random surely has to be the system we have put together this squad to play? We need 2 sitting midfielders to allow our very very attack minded fullbacks the freedom to get forward without exposing the defence as you not only have the screen of the 2 sitting players you have the numbers further forward to stop the ball being played in the first place by closing down. If you didn't plan to play 2 holding midfielders you wouldn't have replaced pack with 2 sitting midfielders? 

These systems mean every single one of our players has a place, 442 or 352 mean that we are wasting some of them and can't play them if we want to switch to one of those systems then we will need to recruit heavily as we don't have the players to effectively play them. 

Totally agree with your observations mate.

I look at our squads strengths and weaknesses and 433 or 4231 seem the most sensible formations to get the most out of them.

As examples...And imo, Nketiah would suit both.

________________Bents________________

Hunt______Kalas_____Moore____DaSilva

Brownhill_______Nagy________Messengo

Weimann_______Striker________Eliasson

Or...

________________Bents__________________

Hunt_____Kalas______Williams______Jay

___________Nagy_____HNM_____________

Watkins_______Palmer________Brownhill

_______________Striker__________________

[Cowshed]

10 hours ago, AshtonRobin21 said:

I’ve just had a look at the current championship table. It caught my eye that the current top 6 (plus Millwall in 7th), all play formations suited to one striker. 

Delving deeper into this from 1st place to ourselves in 11th, only two teams play with 2 regular strikers. 

Leeds - Bamford

West Brom - Robson-Kanu

Brentford - Watkins

Forest - Grabban

Fulham - Mitrovic

Swansea - Baston

Millwall - Bradshaw

Sheff Wed - play 2 up top (rotation)

Hull - Eaves

Preston - Stockley (*often rotated)

City - Fam and Weimann

Is this showing that our formation is out of date with the current trend of formations within the league. There’s no questioning that counter-attacking football has become a key part of today’s game, leading to teams maximising their strengths with the use of wingers and attacking midfielders. Yet our shape and general set up looks to be rather flat. 

Formations such as 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 are the chosen set-up for the teams in the top end of the division. So why do we flick between 3-5-2 and 4-4-2? 

The main discussion on the forum today has been about Kasey Palmer. Now we could certainly argue that he has been mismanaged. Kasey would flourish in a 4-2-3-1. This would also allow Eliasson to play on a regular basis too.

Come the end of this transfer window we will hope to have signed a striker capable of running off the last defender. Would this not be perfectly suited to a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3?  

LJ made a valid point after the Luton game about the players attacking Eliassons crosses. He wants one across the near post and someone always attacking the back. A 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 allows the second winger to attack the box at the far post whilst the striker attacks the near.

This seems to be a strength of Marley Watkins (credit to him in recent weeks, looks to have stepped up). Marley is physical, and hardworking. The goal against Luton highlights my point about attacking the cross. 

When we have possession (particularly at home matches) we often look to reach a ‘sticking point’ in the final 3rd of the pitch. The movement seems to slow down and options are limited. Often our only option is to play the ball wide to Eliasson and hope for some of his magic to work. 

Looking at other teams in the division (West Brom, Leeds, Brentford, Fulham), they seem to have consistent fluidity in their style of football in a formation that fits. 

Looking through our squad we have players with great ability who I believe are being restricted in the current formations.

Massengo, Nagy, Brownhill are all capable of moving the ball quickly as they are capable of driving forward with the ball. It currently seems that they are either being told to make numerous passes (before subsequently squandering possession), or they have no options in front of them.

Players such as Palmer, Eliasson, Watkins, Paterson are the direct link to goal. Get them in the positions to make an impact. Allow them to show their ability in the freedom given to the likes of Benrahma, pereira, Diaganna and Hernandez. 

The look of the current standings tells a story. The teams with similar systems are at the top. Yes granted only a few points separate a number of sides, but all of the current top 6 seem to have a system that recognises their strengths and allows them to showcase their attacking talent.

Our current set-up looks to invite teams on to attack us.

I’ve mentioned numerous times that we often look to minimise other teams strengths instead of implementing our own. Changing the system and formation is the best way to utilise our talents within the squad.

I’ve highlighted in the last few days that I feel in order to gain promotion to the promised land our future would lie in the hands of another manager. However that will never stop me from supporting this club, If LJ is the man in charge then he will get my backing each and every 90 minutes we play. As fans all we want is for the club to be successful moving forward. 

That said, the formation and system needs to be addressed for us to become a threat in this league.

With the squad we have let’s allow them to play fast paced football that will have teams worrying about us.

- Let’s let Eliasson use his pace and quick feet to deliver the crosses.

- Let’s let a creative midfielder (hopefully Palmer) worry about playing the killer defense splitting pass. And not have to worry about being stuck in the middle of the pitch with no option in front of him. 

-Let’s give the second winger in the system the freedom to attack the box. 

- Let’s find that striker who will give defenders a headache for 90 minutes by constantly being an option in attack.

- And finally let’s let the midfield do their job of supplying the ball forward to make those attacks possible, instead of playing 50 passes side-to-side.

Its a very interesting post but too generalised. Formations are meaninglessly vague without highlighting the intent behind them.

The teams you highlight have similar systems in numbers but vary significantly with their approach

You have highlighted teams that make less passes forward, and make less dribbles than Bristol City. The teams you highlight are not frequently changing the system  Fulham for instance make a decision to dominate the football and that will mean they go backwards and sideways a lot more than BCFC do. These teams do have fluidity and consistency of approach but its fundamentally a point beyond style, its even intent and the commitment behind it.

[Mendip City]

You can play 2 up top comfortably in a 3-5-2. 
Trouble is when we play that it ends up as 5-3-2 (LJ’s natural cautiousness) meaning the front two have limited support and no width in the team when attacking. 
Compare the way we play when using 3 centre backS than the way the Cotterill promotion team played with Little/Tavernier/Bryan playing almost as wingers when we were going forward and Ayling always looking to step out from the back.  

[Sixtyseconds]

So why do we flick between 3-5-2 and 4-4-2?

And

3-4-1-2

And

3-4-2-1

And

4-2-3-1

And

3-5-1-1

But not 4-3-3 It must be dirty.

[Up The City!]

Not sure why you have chosen Championship clubs to make your point when 1 striker formations have been common abroad for a long time. The Premier League then followed and the Championship has followed on from that.

I've had this debate on here before. We used to play with 1 striker and LJ got absolutely ripped to shreds for playing with 1 striker at home.

Liverpool play with 1 striker, doesn't do then any harm does it?

[JoeAman08]

Don’t think formations matter as much. What I have noticed is our lack of press. We don’t need to press the full length of the pitch. That said we need to at least have a half press which I think most sides do. Even Shrewsbury today pressed us in their half. Get into us make us uncomfortable don’t give us time to take a touch. On the other hand we sat back and let them dictate the tempo. It was easy for them to do what they wanted. Time in the central of the pitch time on the wings it was embarrassing that we let a L1 side come to AG and be the dominant side

[Dr Balls]

13 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

Not sure why you have chosen Championship clubs to make your point when 1 striker formations have been common abroad for a long time. The Premier League then followed and the Championship has followed on from that.

I've had this debate on here before. We used to play with 1 striker and LJ got absolutely ripped to shreds for playing with 1 striker at home.

Liverpool play with 1 striker, doesn't do then any harm does it?

Liverpool don’t play with 1 striker. They have 3 in Mane, Firmino and Sarah. Same as Brentford on Wednesday.

4-3-3 with 3 in midfield, which could include Palmer and 2 holding midfielders, plus the full backs acting as a wing backs, and a central defender who can bring the ball out, is very attacking. The 2 wide strikers have to help cover the full backs. It’s the classic Dutch set up that Cruyff took to Barcelona and Guardiola has continued to use.

The other option is to go 3-4-3 which is more like Chelsea or even Sheffield United. There is even more emphasis is on one or more of the central defenders bringing the ball out and move into midfield. Or in Wilder’s case use them as wingers!!
 

Either way, we need to find a solid formation that stops leaking goals and allows for Moore to play as one of the central defenders, as he is the one who isn’t scared to bring the ball out regularly. Kalas can do it but does it much less often. Plus it needs to include Eliasson to provide the assists. That shouldn’t be too difficult...

[Dr Balls]

1 minute ago, JoeAman08 said:

Don’t think formations matter as much. What I have noticed is our lack of press. We don’t need to press the full length of the pitch. That said we need to at least have a half press which I think most sides do. Even Shrewsbury today pressed us in their half. Get into us make us uncomfortable don’t give us time to take a touch. On the other hand we sat back and let them dictate the tempo. It was easy for them to do what they wanted. Time in the central of the pitch time on the wings it was embarrassing that we let a L1 side come to AG and be the dominant side

Agreed we do sit off teams and let them have far too much time and space. Our success 2 years ago was based on Bobby defending from the very front. Brentford near enough camped in our half at times on Wednesday with minimal press from us.

So are our players not fit enough to press as hard as other teams? I can’t believe that of Weimann or Eliasson. Fam on the other hand...

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

Don’t think formations matter as much. What I have noticed is our lack of press. We don’t need to press the full length of the pitch. That said we need to at least have a half press which I think most sides do. Even Shrewsbury today pressed us in their half. Get into us make us uncomfortable don’t give us time to take a touch. On the other hand we sat back and let them dictate the tempo. It was easy for them to do what they wanted. Time in the central of the pitch time on the wings it was embarrassing that we let a L1 side come to AG and be the dominant side

With Diédhiou Eliasson and Palmer on the pitch it would be foolish to not drop off into a medium block. They do not have the discipline and consistent physical intensity to press high. The ability to press (high) requires abilities many players do not have.

[JoeAman08]

12 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

With Diédhiou Eliasson and Palmer on the pitch it would be foolish to not drop off into a medium block. They do not have the discipline and consistent physical intensity to press high. The ability to press (high) requires abilities many players do not have.

I don’t believe Palmer and Eliasson can’t press. I also don’t believe you should be dropping off a team with worse talent than you. Like I said not asking them to press the full length of the pitch. It should be possible for professional footballers to press in their own half. Shrews constantly had their 3 CBs on the halfway line with just Fam by them. Meaning they had 7v9 and yet found all the time and space to pick us apart. No I don’t buy that is a personnel issue. Shouldn’t be that hard to cover half the pitch in a press with the superior talent. 

[Davefevs]

20 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

With Diédhiou Eliasson and Palmer on the pitch it would be foolish to not drop off into a medium block. They do not have the discipline and consistent physical intensity to press high. The ability to press (high) requires abilities many players do not have.

Agree to a large extent.  But even then the three would need to work better to then squeeze, or cut passing lanes.  Reid organised it so well, dictating when to press, but importantly where to press.  I don’t see these three “leading” it effectively.  I think Weimann could.

[Up The City!]

2 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

Liverpool don’t play with 1 striker. They have 3 in Mane, Firmino and Sarah. Same as Brentford on Wednesday.

4-3-3 with 3 in midfield, which could include Palmer and 2 holding midfielders, plus the full backs acting as a wing backs, and a central defender who can bring the ball out, is very attacking. The 2 wide strikers have to help cover the full backs. It’s the classic Dutch set up that Cruyff took to Barcelona and Guardiola has continued to use.

The other option is to go 3-4-3 which is more like Chelsea or even Sheffield United. There is even more emphasis is on one or more of the central defenders bringing the ball out and move into midfield. Or in Wilder’s case use them as wingers!!
 

Either way, we need to find a solid formation that stops leaking goals and allows for Moore to play as one of the central defenders, as he is the one who isn’t scared to bring the ball out regularly. Kalas can do it but does it much less often. Plus it needs to include Eliasson to provide the assists. That shouldn’t be too difficult...

Liverpool do not play with 3 strikers, in fact I was technically wrong when I said Liverpool play with one striker because they dont. They actually play with none as Firmino is deployed as a false 9.

They play a 433. The positioning of them would suggest they are wingers but they are wingers that are instructed to cut inside. They will take on the full back and as they drift inside, takes the full back with them, this then allows TAA or Robertson to get forward into the space vacated by the full back. They are not strikers, not wingers either really, inside forwards would be a adequate description as they combine both a wingers and a strikers role.

[Up The City!]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree to a large extent.  But even then the three would need to work better to then squeeze, or cut passing lanes.  Reid organised it so well, dictating when to press, but importantly where to press.  I don’t see these three “leading” it effectively.  I think Weimann could.

I've often wondered why we dont let Weimann play the Bobby Reid role, he seems perfect for it.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

I've often wondered why we dont let Weimann play the Bobby Reid role, he seems perfect for it.

If you’re on twitter, check out my posts this evening!!!

[Cowshed]

25 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I don’t believe Palmer and Eliasson can’t press. 

I didn't say they can't. They are not particularly good .. No they are rubbish at it. Palmer clearly has little understanding of angles, cues, shapes and traps. Eliasson like Palmer lacks intensity without the ball and understanding of angles. 

Getting into a medium block is problematic for them (the three or two). Extending that both physically and mentally without extensive specificity of training which should be done in pre season would be stupidity.

25 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

 I also don’t believe you should be dropping off a team with worse talent than you. 

Pressing style should be consistent regardless of whoever you play because it should be dependant on the players a team has x its global picture of its play in possession. What you do out of possession relates to what is done with it. 

 

25 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

 It should be possible for professional footballers to press in their own half. 

 Define what you mean? Dropping off and screening and going off triggers is not pressing. Its sort of what City do but with  disorganization at times .

25 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Shrews constantly had their 3 CBs on the halfway line with just Fam by them. Meaning they had 7v9 and yet found all the time and space to pick us apart. No I don’t buy that is a personnel issue. Shouldn’t be that hard to cover half the pitch in a press with the superior talent. 

Obviously it is a personnel issue. If a team is screening in what you describe as a low block it should not be easy to pick it apart e.g. concentration issues or lack of understanding or can't be arsed .. Possibly all three ..

 

 

[JoeAman08]

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I didn't say they can't. They are not particularly good .. No they are rubbish at it. Palmer clearly has little understanding of angles, cues, shapes and traps. Eliasson like Palmer lacks intensity without the ball and understanding of angles. 

Getting into a medium block is problematic for them (the three or two). Extending that both physically and mentally without extensive specificity of training which should be done in pre season would be stupidity.

Pressing style should be consistent regardless of whoever you play because it should be dependant on the players a team has x its global picture of its play in possession. What you do out of possession relates to what is done with it. 

 

 Define what you mean? Dropping off and screening and going off triggers is not pressing. Its sort of what City do but with  disorganization at times .

Obviously it is a personnel issue. If a team is screening in what you describe as a low block it should not be easy to pick it apart e.g. concentration and focus issues or lack familiarity to task or can't be arsed .. Possibly all three ..

 

 

I will take your word for it but you’d think with Palmer’s upbringing through Chelsea and England he’d have some form of understanding with a press. For me not enough desire in the side to win the ball back whether it be a lack of understanding, ability or tactics. We simply don’t defend with any energy.